Canning v. U.S. Department of Justice
251 F. Supp. 3d 74
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Canning v. DOJ, FOIA suit filed in D.D.C. (Civil Action No. 11-1295 GK).
- Cross-motions for summary judgment completed as of December 15, 2013.
- Plaintiff filed three post-briefing motions on January 2, 2014: discovery, supplemental reply, and in camera review.
- Court had already denied prior discovery requests and emphasized FOIA discovery is rare.
- Court denies all three motions and plans to rule on the cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Order to accompany the Memorandum Opinion, issued April 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limited discovery is warranted in this FOIA action | Canning seeks discovery on LaRouche name and FBI HQ FOIA requests. | FOIA actions rarely allow discovery; supplementation may suffice. | Denied plaintiff’s Third Motion for Discovery. |
| Whether plaintiff may file a supplement to his reply | Surreply needed to address changes in defendant's declarations. | No new issues raised by defendant in reply; ample opportunity already provided. | Denied Motion to Submit a Supplement to His Reply. |
| Whether in camera review of FOIA withholdings is appropriate | In camera review is necessary to challenge possibly improper withholding. | Affidavits justify exemptions; no bad faith shown; issues well-briefed. | Denied Motion for Limited In Camera Review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. C.I.A., 271 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2003) (FOIA discovery rarely allowed; court may request supplements instead of discovery)
- Hall v. C.I.A., 881 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2012) (Court may require supplementations; in camera review not automatic when affidavits suffice)
- Center for Auto Safety v. EPA, 731 F.2d 16 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (In camera review appropriate only if affidavits are insufficient)